Please allow me to present you my work. It was great fun to create it and actually that was it's purpose; to write down whatever came up from my mind or from someone else. A big collection of ideas and "what if..."-s around Epic Armageddon.

I have no intention, other than sharing it with you. Really. Think of it as posting a painted model or batrep or anything except home made rules...

Hey, this is interesting, and includes a few of the suggestions we have bandied about in our group. So far we have stuck to the standard because of potentially wanting to play on the tournament scene.

I am surprised you haven't included anything about being able to suppress war engines (we had been thinking 2bms per weapon system.) as this simultaneously seems to make them overpowered and frustrations to play against, while also requiring the large ones to be so highly pointed to compensate they get included very rarely.

Also the massive advantage of extra activations - and the knock on effect this has on discouraging formation upgrades over taking more formations. Had thought about the dirtside solution - where the player with the most activations must activate 2 at a time until even - but in a way this is still an advantage... Never really found a better way though.

The issue regarding war engine partial suppression came up, however I haven't found a satisfying way to create the rule for it. Up until now.The idea to disable weapon systems probably become an inbalance factor beetween war engines. Since there are some which have few but big guns, whereas there are others with lots but small guns.So far I have figured out an extra -1 to hit modifier (cumulative with other modifiers). That would affect each and every kind of war engine the same rate, and they could still fire their big guns.

The other factor is blast markers. The problem with fix 2 blast markers is that they do not scale well as they won't even come into play on 2 or 1 DC war engines, while higher DC war engines will too easily lose their firepower potential.I think half of the starting DC is a moderate solution to this as it;-scales well with each type of war engine-they are triggered from 2+ DC which fits the intention to have some "middle ground" suppression effect beetween 0-x blast markers > full DC blast markers.-it is already known part of the gameplay. (barrage)

To sum up the additional rule idea:War Engine partial suppression is an addition to the original one. Each War Engine in a formation counts partially suppressed if the number of blast markers reach half of it’s starting damage capacity.Partially suppressed War Engines shooting attack receives penalty in a form of -1 to hit modifier.This effect is cumulative with other modifiers.

-Landed aircraft relation to objectives nerfed.-Aerial fight have been reversed to the current NetEA F.A.Q. path.-Commander wording received a fancy listing and made to match new stuff.-Fire Support effect after losing engagement rewritten to address the new ranges and also received a new option.-Preventive order added.

One amend I'd suggest would be to Crossfire:In addition, a formation caught in a crossfire attack receives two Blast markers for the first unit destroyed by the attack or for the first damage point lost if a war engine, rather than just one Blast marker for the destroyed unit as would usually be the case (see 1.9.4).-The rule as written benefits WEs even though they too should be disrupted by being crossfired.

Splash: Not yet. First I want to finalize and polish the complete house ruleset before tweaking army lists for them. It can be played with the current lists. Currently as it stands; only the slow firing, slow and steady, and pin point weapons must be rewritten to fit for Fathomless Destruction. Anything else is mainly pointwise balanced or inbalanced, but playable.

Carlos: Hmm interesting. I must admit that our team -it seems wrongly- already played crossfire the way you suggested. I thought the casualty translates into damage point in case of war engines to apply extra blast marker for the first one.I'll add this to the house ruleset.

I like variations on a theme, as long as it's fun and entertaining. I'd also like to see a stripped-down, bare-bones version of E:A, something that cuts the playtime in half if possible, and on a smaller board (aside from Minigeddon, which I do like, but it's just small battles with all of the normal gubbins--which isn't bad at all).

I like variations on a theme, as long as it's fun and entertaining. I'd also like to see a stripped-down, bare-bones version of E:A, something that cuts the playtime in half if possible, and on a smaller board (aside from Minigeddon, which I do like, but it's just small battles with all of the normal gubbins--which isn't bad at all).

Keep up the good work.

Epic 40k is pretty slimmed down in some ways, I always found it a bit quicker as there's less micro-ing of attacks.

Yup, for Epic there are lot of opportunities, great scenarios, grand campaigns to choose from or creating one.Basicly I like to stick to the rules and not turn-up anything, not even microschopic house ruling, unless there is an overall agreement to do so.

However writing a complete set of rules is a different story. All the parts you can read in Fathomless Destruction has came up at many different times. Discussions which always ended up as dream since there is no interest / effort to change the current rules. So I got tired of talking about "what if"-s as I already knew, there is no real point to arrive with it, other than dead end.

Also still like playing E:A as is. Our team held and participated some tournaments in the past. Events quite fun, which I aim to repeat in the future. Yet the new rule ideas just bogged me so much that a year and a half before today, I started to write it out of my head and formating them coherent. <-- I hope it is not only my view of it.

Now here we go; version 1.2 !

-Modified the wording of command points to clearly represent their function background-wise.-Modified the wording of preventive order to point out how it behaves with commander ability or tau coordinated fire.-Restricted flight now affects bombers as intended (they fell out in earlier versions, since they cannot jink!)-Added War Engine Crossfire(d)

I like variations on a theme, as long as it's fun and entertaining. I'd also like to see a stripped-down, bare-bones version of E:A, something that cuts the playtime in half if possible, and on a smaller board (aside from Minigeddon, which I do like, but it's just small battles with all of the normal gubbins--which isn't bad at all).

Keep up the good work.

One of the fastest ways to reduce to play time would be to hack out the aerospace rules in large part. Reworking a ground attack flight as being an even more abstracted concept probabbly would work. Something akin to say using a straight line with a ruler from one end of the board to the other, from your edge to the opponents at any angle and point. All formations under the line (or some range to the line) suffer X weapon attacks from the unit. Any AA in range to the line gets to shoot.

I'd do it as formation A comes into range of say a 15cm shot from air attack first so gets attacked. Roll hits/saves. Next formation B is in line to the attack run. However there's an AA bubble intersecting it before the fighter comes into that 15cm attack range first so it gets to shoot at before the attack is made. Roll to hit/save.... yada yada yada.

Flights become also single use (or X number limited use, unless shot down then simply dead) for the game to make the ability to to strafe the entire board and hit multiple formations less powerful. Removes jinking, maneuvering, and remembering if and where AA bubbles were entered (on engage/disengagement moves), reduces the book keeping and simply removes the whole disengagement and BM concepts entirely.

Sounds more complex than it is. Games like Battletech were doing exactly that 25 years ago and moved quick (that game had wayyy tooo much bookeeping so it was a requirement to make it quick and fast). Also keeps the air game less the focus of the game.

Basically the whole air wing becomes more like an offboard/table support weapon (I think FoW and/or Bolt Action do something akin as well)

It's not for everyone's liking but some thoughts.

_________________He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

... Something akin to say using a straight line with a ruler from one end of the board to the other, from your edge to the opponents at any angle and point. All formations under the line (or some range to the line) suffer X weapon attacks from the unit. Any AA in range to the line gets to shoot.

That's a very good idea indeed, line-straffing. It is used in some other rulebooks and IIRC in Epic 3rd edition (I didn't have aircraft minis at the time so I can't remember).

Yeah cool idea and would make things easier for air rules, though personally never really had issues with airfights, but I can see how line-straffing would make a faster measuring and applying AA rules. I'll look after it in 3rd edition, FoW, bolt action and see how it would work exactly in E:A.

Thank you for your contribution, all ideas, opinions are welcome here!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum